Arkansas Watch

Monday, September 29, 2008

Arkansawyers Don't Have a Champion in Congress

For now at least, The Great Bank Robbery (where the banks try to use government to rob the taxpayers) has been foiled by Congress. Calls against the "bailout" were 300-1 against by one account. It was the special interests against the taxpayers, and with a monumental effort, the taxpayers won a single round. The majority of Congress voted against this criminal theft, but what about OUR congressmen?

Sell-outs, each and every one. Marion Berry, John Boozman, Vic Snyder, and Mike Ross all voted for the bailout. This bailout would pledge your future earnings to help pay back foreign banks (like those owned by the Chinese Communists) who were conned by our banks into buying bundles of the bogus loans our banks were making to illegal aliens (and others) under government pressure to do so.

This vote means that each and every one of our congressional delegation voted for foreign banks, our own Wall-Street High flyers, and even illegal aliens, over the interests of the people who elevated them to office.

In addition, both McCain and Obama supported this bailout, so there is no major party candidate who you can trust either. Increasingly, Americans have no where to go as the "leadership" of both parties tries to force the rank-and-file to sell us out to global interests. Thankfully, enough in Congress decided to serve their constituents instead of their "party leaders" that we were able to stop this particular robbery. Each and every congressman who voted against this scheme deserve our thanks and gratitude. Unfortunately, we in the Natural State don't seem to have any of those.

NY Times/Who is Responsbile for Bailout Crisis

(The following are all quotes from the following articles. Note the dates on the articles. See my comments as well as links to full articles at end of email)

President Clinton Pressures Fannie Mae To Give Risky Loans

New York Times Excerpts September 30, 1999 Footnote 1 (footnotes contain link to entire articles in this email)

"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.

"Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

"From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

"In July [1999 under Clinton presidency], the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

"Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent…In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent."

"The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now [1999] required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.

"But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Senate shortsightedly voted to retrench recently. Clinton has threatened a veto if the House concurs.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Bill Clinton, Goerge Bush, and Financial Blame

Bill Clinton is all about one thing- Bill Clinton. Recently the hyper-narcissist claimed that if members of his own party had listened to him about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then taxpayers would not have had to (and we didn't anyway) bail them out. He was supposed to join other Democrats and blame eight years of G.W. Bush, but he keeps breaking from the script. Its almost as if he wants Obama to lose or something!

There is plenty of blame to go around for the wider banking crises. George Bush has been in charge eight long years, including years when his party had control of both houses of Congress. He could have fixed any Clinton blunders. In a moment you can read what he did instead.

Now for the real un-PC root cause of the sub-prime crisis: AW has heard whispers from bankers (not that they would go public with something as non-PC as what they may say in private) that Clinton put in place a rule that said 21% of new mortgage loans had to go to minority neighborhoods! Later that quota was upped by Bush to over 30%! One banker claimed he was so far behind on his "quota" that he had to purchase millions of dollars worth of home loans from Los Angeles!

This would make the sub-prime crises an illegal immigration crises. Bankers were shoveling all this money to people who were not even in the country legally, and who did not have a reliably credit history, and in some cases likely never intended to pay on the loan in any case. Bush would not say that because he has sold us out to the globalists, and has consistently and treacherously taken the side of illegal aliens over the GOP base that elevated him to the Presidency.

Instead of ending Clinton's mad effort to legislate the laws of economics, Bush increased them. He announced he was going to alter programs to make it easier for minorities to own homes. Now minorities with no ability to make mortgage payments could get zero-down home loans! In other words, he did not fix Clinton's Affirmative Action Home Loan Mess, he added to it! For a more detailed analysis of the Bush-Clinton administrations Affirmative Action Mortgage Train Wreck, squeeze here.

Now of course, he wants legal citizens of this country to bail out every corporate boat that his colossal fiscal mismanagement put holes in.

Government intervention, specifically telling banks they had to make a certain percentage of home loans to minorities when there were not that many minorities who were good credit risks, has precipitated this crisis. Now they want more government intervention to fix it. Just say no. No bailout, and change the insane home mortgage regulations that helped force us into this crisis.

Baldwin wants to end the warfare state and the welfare state (at the federal level), eliminate the Federal Reserve's power to funnel money to their cronies, and protect innocent human life. Such vast amounts of money are made servicing government contracts that candidates who will reign in this taxpayer abuse get out-raised 10,000 to one, so Baldwin faces stiff hurdles, but none higher than voters who lock their minds into the two-party box.

As I interact with my countrymen, the most bizarre effect I have ever witnessed is their inability to break with their media training and move outside the two-party system. The conversations go like this.....

Them: "The Republicans and Democrats are both crooked. They don't represent me, just the insiders".

Me:"So you don't think either McCain or Obama will take this country in the right direction?"

Them:"No! They are all crazed with greed up there. They are selling us out!"

Me:"Well, why don't you join me in voting for a candidate from a third party who hasn't sold you out and won't- Chuck Baldwin?"

Friday, September 19, 2008

Brummett Deconstruction Time Again

Jim Walton: Brummett disagreed with Walton's action, but in a tepid, measured, respectful tone much different from the acid-throwing style he uses on us non-billionaires.***********************************I am normally thankful for John Brummett's attempts at writing. Having them as a foil make this a better blog than it would be without them. At least it used to. Frankly, he has been on a run lately where what he was writing actually made some sense. That alarmed me. There was nothing to take issue with, much less offense to. What a killjoy the man was becoming! Finally, that slackard has churned one out that has my juices flowing again. Thanks John.

I refer to his "We're all in a Lottery" column. The header to this post already hints at my first objection- the vast double-standard in tone when he objects to the actions of a billionaire with a penchant for buying newspapers vs. when he is using his platform to shout down relatively powerless private citizens like Lori Taylor or Debbie Pelley, or even his continued piling on of the now-private citizens called Holts and Duggars after practically making a living off of bad-mouthing them.

But that is mere hypocrisy. The only ones among us who don't have at least a little of that in them are the shamelessly wicked. It is the logical processes, or lack thereof, along with the flawed premises, that interest me here.

Let's start with his statement, "I merely wish to point out that you could say that Walton already won his lottery.

His winning number was to come into this world as the son of Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart."

His reasoning seems to be based on the premise that wealth is morally neutral. That is, it makes no difference how it was attained. The Walton Family wealth was attained because they found a better way to serve people's wants and needs than did their competitors. A lottery winner's wealth is attained by the luck of the draw. They served no one. The money they won was simply money that everyone else lost. They did not trade for it in a vast number of mutually beneficial transactions as did the Waltons.

Brummett's point seems to be that since John Walton came into earned wealth by inheiritence, he should not oppose some one else getting a chance to come into unearned wealth by winning a lottery. It is true that John Walton did not earn the whole of his fortune, but that fortune was well-earned. Any of us have the chance to improve our lot by finding a better way to serve the needs of our fellow citizens, and leaving our estate to our progeny.

It is bad for society to equate inheiriting a justly-earned fortune with winning a lottery. Once it becomes stuck in the people's minds that one form of getting money is just as worthy as any other, the idea of getting wealthy through service to others will be completely gone. And that willingness to serve, before the scamsters and government thieves crept in, is what once made our economy great. "It is a pleasure to serve you" is a saying that was once common in the United States and an alien concept to most of the world.

Ayn Rand said it well in "Atlas Shrugged": " Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it.

Jim Walton is no worthless heir. Readers of this space know that I am a Wal-mart critic when I think they are in the wrong. And when I do, I don't tip-toe in like Brummett does. I let them have it with the bark on. Still, Jim Walton is not smaller than his money. He has not corrupted his money. How many stories have we read about lottery winners who then make a complete mess of their lives? Walton not only inheirited the fortune, he inheirited a great measure of the virtue that made the fortune possible.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Facts vs. Conventional "Wisdom" on Higher Ed Money

Conventional wisdom is that a government lottery with all profits dumped into higher education will improve our economy. My view on this pro-lottery talk? It sure takes a lot of balls!

********************************************

Remember in November we are not voting on the concept of a lottery in general, we are voting on a specific lottery proposal, one that stinks like a road-kill skunk for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not people should be allowed to buy lottery tickets. One of those is that the money extracted from the rubes who buy the tickets will go towards an increase in the funds going to college scholarships. This is already one of the most over-funded areas of state government!

Now proponents of this lottery might argue with me all day long on that, the difference being that I have facts to support my position while all they have are distortions and gas. The rest of this column will be some of my favorite fun facts to support my contention that college scholarships in Arkansas are already over-funded.....

*Higher Ed told us in December of 06 that they needed more bond money for (among other things) an “E-corridor”. We voted it down, then they magically “found” most of the money they needed to do it anyway. They had most of the money, they just wanted to keep that money and use even more of ours! THEN we got to “choose again” and this time with the help of “conventional perspectives” we voted to give them the bond money anyway!

*UCA and UALR Chancellors started giving in-state tuition tax breaks and even some scholarship money to illegal aliens. This despite the fact that the legislature specifically voted down legislation authorizing them to do this. They backed off due to public outrage, not a shortage of funds. Clearly, they had plenty to throw away in 06 and 07.

*One of the arguments used by proponents of letting illegal aliens get access to our state merit scholarship program was that some of the money was unclaimed one year anyway! So the achievers are getting quite a bit of money right now. Additional funds would therefore have to be claimed by relative slackers. I am even less enthusiastic about rolling my lazy carcass out of bed in the morning to go to work in order to finance their college “education”.

*The U of A President is building himself a $7,000,000.00 mansion with taxpayer money. We all know about Lu Hardin and the bonus money, acquired real estate that was used to fete “special people” etc….

*Scholarship money is getting so out of hand that the legislature had to pass a law limiting the percentage of a school’s budget they could spend on scholarships to 30%! Some schools are still over the limit, and now legislators are talking about bringing the percentage allowed down to 15% to get closer to the national average. In Arkansas, the colleges are buying their students and then claiming they need more money to build facilities for all of their students!

*Our flagship campus in Fayetteville now has a freshman class that is composed of 30% out-of-state students. They are considering opening a recruiting office in Dallas! Since they are running out of good applicants from Arkansas to shovel money at, they are shoveling it to young people from other states!

*Arkansas has had a recent massive expansion in college enrollment (21% increase since 2001) and in degrees issued (24% increase since 2001). Now we have a higher proportion of people that enroll but do not graduate relative to surrounding states. This indicates we have expanded opportunities for college scholarships faster than our pool of motivated and capable students can keep up.

*We still have too many graduates who have to go to other states to find a job which fits with their degree, indicating we are being taxed to train workers for other regions. Thus we already have more higher-ed infrastructure than we have business structure to go with it.

The Higher Ed report on Education is full of the usual platitudes and bromides, but the stats they use fall flat. By confusing cause and effect, they presume that churning out lots of people with college degrees brings a good economy rather than vice-versa.

Bottom line- this lottery proposal is a rotten idea on many levels, but most of all in the way it inflexibly sends all profits to higher ed.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Rebuttal to AG Opinion Allowing Illegal Aliens To Attend College

In Dustin McDaniel's Attorney General's Opinion he states: "It is my opinion in response to your specific questions that undocumented individuals may enroll in Arkansas’s public colleges and universities and that such schools are not obliged to verify citizenship as a condition of enrollment. 1.

Compare that to these quotes by Pat Reilly, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, reported May, 08. 2

[T]he only way foreign nationals can attend college in the United States legally is through the agency's International Student Exchange and Visitors Program. Illegal immigrants in the U.S. cannot qualify for that program, Reilly said.

However, Reilly is also quoted as saying,

[T]he federal government does not require schools or colleges to check the immigration status of students, as North Carolina plans to do. Likewise, the agency does not pursue additional disciplinary action against illegal immigrants for attending public colleges.

"ICE does not target schools, colleges or universities, mainly because of the increased likelihood that children could get caught up in the raids, Reilly said. (She stressed, however, that ICE officers may go after illegal immigrants at any time.)"

Reilly cited several practical reasons for the agency's stance.ICE is more worried about enforcing immigration law in the workplace, because it's the prospect of jobs that lures immigrants to the country illegally in the first place.Plus, it's less likely that a separate crime occurs when an undocumented student signs up for classes than when an illegal immigrant applies for a job. At the workplace, either the employer is knowingly hiring illegal immigrants or the job applicants are using fraudulent documents to get work, both of which are crimes beyond immigration offenses, Reilly said. (Taken from article, "North Carolina Pushes Ban on Illegal Immigrant Students" May 21, 2008

I think those quotes by Pat Reilly are clear enough for anyone educated above the elementary level. It is illegal for illegal aliens to attend college.

However, Reilly admits they are not going to enforce the law; therefore I guess Dustin McDaniel can get away with saying, "it is my opinion in response to your specific questions that undocumented individuals may enroll in Arkansas’s public colleges and universities and that such schools are not obliged to verify citizenship as a condition of enrollment" until someone takes it to a court that actually rules on law. But his opinion does not make it LEGAL, and I thought the attorney general's opinion was supposed to be declaring a LEGAL opinion based on law.

In the legislative session of 2005 when Joyce Elliott was presenting her bill to allow in-state tuition and scholarships, Senator Beebe made the point several times that undocumented students become detainable and deportable at age 18 1/2. He then asked every college president one by one that testified for the bill if they would hire these students when they graduated, and each one wisely answered no. They knew it would be a crime to hire them. So are we educating these students so they can commit a crime in order to use the education that the citizens of Arkansas are paying for through their taxes?

Mike Beebe was quoted by The Associated Press as saying," If you don't like the law, you try to change it in the way this country was set up and designed to change the law." Our country's design to change the law is not through an attorney general opinion. Governor Beebe rightfully interpreted the law and brought colleges into accordance with the law that colleges can't give in-state tuition to illegal aliens. He should do the same in this situation.

I am sure that the judges in the case that mandated K-12 education for children of illegal aliens had this criminal aspect in mind in that ruling when they cut off mandatory education at 12th grade. 3 They knew their ruling would be unconstitutional if it included postsecondary education since postsecondary education deals with these undocumented illegal aliens who are by law committing a crime by staying in the United States after they are 18 1/2.

I noted today that a three judge panel of the California Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Monday that a California law intended to permit illegal aliens to attend public colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates is unconstitutional. Perhaps when this controversy over attendance of college by illegal aliens is settled, there will be a final decision based on law.

See my next email on Attorney General Dustin McDaniel's premise that no law specifically addresses this issue of whether illegal aliens can attend college or not.

This article can be read online at this link: http://www.wpaag.org/Illegals%20-AR%20%20AG%20Rebuttal%20on%20illegals%20&%20college.htmIt can be commented on at this blog:

Monday, September 15, 2008

Even More Proof Higher Ed is Overfunded

Lt. Governor Bill Halter backs a government lottery with mandatory provisions to add all profits to the top of the pile of taxpayer money we already spend on higher education.

********************************

The idea that Arkansas has a legitimate need to increase spending on our higher-ed infrastructure is fashionable as a thought, and idiotic as a policy. A rational economic look at the situation reveals that if anything, we already have more public dollars extracted from our earnings for higher education than our population and economic base warrants. The latest evidence for this comes from an nwaonline article about freshmen at our state's flagship campus.

The article informs us that roughly one in every three of the 3,010 freshmen on campus comes from outside Arkansas. The University of Arkansas is heavily recruiting students from outside the state, especially Texas. In fact, the university is considering opening a full-time admissions office in the Dallas area to help recruitment efforts.

""They did a good job of selling themselves," said Alice McMillan, a freshman accounting major from Kansas City, Mo.

McMillan came to campus last year for an accounting career seminar, and was impressed by the engagement of the faculty and minority outreach programs. A full scholarship didn't hurt, either." reads the Morning News article.

It doesn't hurt them, but is sure does hurt me, and you too, to know that we have to roll our lazy tails out of bed and go to work in order to pay taxes to subsidize the educations of people from other states. Our state universities are fleecing our taxpayers, not so WE will have an adequately educated workforce among our own population, but rather so that surrounding states can benefit by the gullible and shallow political leadership in this state, who continue to burden our taxpayers with the cost of educating their citizens.

Can there be any doubt whatsoever that there is too much college scholarship money in Arkansas already, when the flagship institution in the state can't find any in-state students that need it? They have to go out of state, because all the top in-state students are already covered!

What's next, paying students a salary to go to college? A recruitment outreach center in Mexico city? Folks we already have too much higher education infrastructure in this state relative to the number of jobs we have that require such an education and even relative to the academic talent pool in the state. There are not even enough such jobs to give one to all of the Arkansans with college degrees- people from our state get degrees and then have to go elsewhere to find work to match that degree. How much less then do we need to expend tax money to educate people from surrounding states who will use us to pay their bills and then on graduation go back to Dallas where the jobs are?

People I am begging you to get some common sense, this lavish spending is bleeding us dry. Don't just repeat slogans to each other about education, look at the numbers, consider the facts. I don't care if it runs counter to the buzz-phrases the dim-wits in the capitol have been repeating to each other like parrots: We don't need more college infrastructure in this state, we need to right-size what we have. The key to a better economy is not educating other region's workers at our expense, it's reducing government spending and letting people keep more of their own earnings.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Ron Paul Issues a Challenge to Two Party Duopoly

Ron Paul held a press conference today with the Green, Reform, and Constitution Party candidates for President. Paul's message was that the two parties have iced all other political parties from the debates by setting up their own debate commission- run by former party chairmen of each party. It used to be that groups like the league of women voters sponsored the debates, but they refused to yield to Republicrat demands to keep the other candidates out. The Republicrats responded by forming this bogus debate commission which shut out all other ideas and candidates.

Paul's group, the Campaign for Liberty is going to sponsor a debate which includes all candidates on enough state ballots to theoretically win the election. This would be six candidates. If Obama and McCain accept the invitation, the Campaign for Liberty will donate one million dollars to veterans groups.

The four candidates came together to make a statement which basically said despite their differences, they agree on four points, 1) move away from military interventionism 2) protect civil liberties and curtail unconstitutional government spying on the civilian population without a warrant 3) Stop adding to the government debt and 4) Investigate and curtail the activities of the Federal Reserve.

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Palin Factor: Religious Bigotry OK if Victim is Pentecostal?

Looking even more like Tina Fey than usual: VP nominee Sarah Palin.***

It seems like a lot of media coverage has gone toward informing American voters what church Sarah Palin has attended, and what the details of the beliefs and practices of her former church (an Assembly of God) are. Our state paper ran a long above-the-fold front page story on it not a week ago.

Why the obsession with her religion from the secular media? The same media hypocrites jumped all over Mike Huckabee when he asked questions about Mitt Romney's Mormon faith. They sent a clear signal that a person's religious beliefs should never be part of the debate. I don't agree with them, but the indignation from them was intense when Huckabee tried it. Now, though they are too sharp to condemn it outright, they seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time attempting to communicate the aspects of Palin's church that will be most off-putting to secular people.

Sarah Palin is a member of a church which actually believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Sometimes, they probably even act like it. Secularists are uncomfortable with that, preferring religions that appropriate religious buzz words and symbols but deny the authority and unique truth claims at the heart of Christianity.

A colleague at work, a staunch Democrat, told me in the break room today that Sarah Palin was "Assembly of God, and those people are nuts. I'd never vote for one of them, they are crazy!".

I asked him if they were crazier than Muslims. I don't believe the internet rumours that Obama is a Muslim for one minute. He is a secularist to the core who wears multi-religious trappings when convenient. Still, I have never known any Assembly of God people to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. Pentecostals/Assembly of God etc... have practices that are somewhat outside the mainstream, but their traditional practices are eminently defensible from the Scriptures that all Christian sects claim to hold dear.

In the last few decades all kinds of weird stuff has crept into the Pentecostal movement, but there is more than one explanation for that. They are more willing to present an inviting environment to people on the skids than many denominations. If you really believe all that Bible stuff, then it becomes a reasonable idea that the Devil is herding the crazies to them because their attitude of openness toward God's supernatural power is a bigger threat to his plans.

The corporate media is again up to their hypocritical tricks. They are the ones who sometimes claim that a candidate's religion is out of bounds for criticism, not me. Still, they only play the "religious bigot card" to protect religions that are outside the bounds of Scriptural Christianity.

Their rule seems to read as follows: If a candidate's religion has tenants that a secular newsperson thinks are objectionable, or if they think it will divide Bible-believing Christians, then the candidate's religion is a legitimate topic for detailed discussion. If a candidate's religion has tenets orthodox Christians of all stripes find objectionable, then the secular media is outraged when someone questions the tenets of another persons religion, and they howl that it is "bigotry" to suggest that ones religious beliefs matter.

They should make up their minds about which way that should be, but I have already made up my mind about them. They need to repent and seek God. Perhaps at the nearest Assembly of God Church.

Jib Jab Strikes Again!

Monday, September 08, 2008

Dobson and FOCUS Get Tough- On Pro-Lifers!

Focus on the Family Founder James Dobson has changed his position on John McCain. He once declared that he would never vote for him, but is now pushing the Arizona Senator for President.

There is a growing schism in the Pro-Life movement between high-profile groups who are "connected" to the Republican party and more grassroots efforts which assail the well-connected groups for their failure to protect innocent life. A former pro-life spokesman named Will Grigg noted that he felt like the paid staffers for the organization had a top priority of keeping the issue in play so that their paychecks could keep coming. IOW, Protecting innocent life was a smokescreen, since once the battle was won, there would be no need for paid warriors to keep on fighting.

National Right to Life, which actually lobbied AGAINST a South Dakota measure that would have ended almost all abortions in that state, is among the groups drawing fire from those who want to move faster to staunch the flow of innocent blood. A well-connected source from the effort to sponsor human life amendments to state constitutions tells me that various NRTL state affiliates have also undermined their efforts. James Dobson heads Focus on the Family, long considered one of the top groups in the country for protecting innocent life. It could be argued that since they have been the leaders, the lack of legal progress despite a pro-life shift in popular feeling is in part their responsibility.

The question boils down to who is really doing God's work and who is just a "palace prophet" that falls into line with the wishes of whoever the current king may be. Today Focus on the Family got tough, but not on abortionists. The got tough on frustrated pro-lifers who protested the lack of real action on life issues from an organization which garners millions of dollars in contributions partly because they wear the mantle of a pro-life champion. Here is an excerpt from the Colorado papers....

"On Thursday, eight people from Denver-based Right to Life Action gathered at Focus on the Family's headquarters in north Colorado Springs and eventually entered the lobby, demanding to talk to Focus President Jim Daly about Dobson's flip-flop.

The protestors were arrested on suspicion of trespassing and later released, said Colorado Springs police Sgt. Mike Lux.

American Right to Life takes McCain to task for voting to approve funds for abortion in the case of pregnancies stemming from rape or incest. At the same time, they said, Dobson is captured on a 1990 video pledging at a Washington, D.C., rally to never "cast one vote for any man or woman who would kill one innocent baby."

Bob Enyart, spokesman for American Right to Life Action and one of the protestors arrested, said Dobson not only "violated his pledge to God" by backing McCain, but is also wrong to believe that McCain will be an anti-abortion president.

"McCain hasn't changed any of his views on abortion," said Enyart, who hosts a Christian talk radio showon KLTT AM in Denver."

NRTL and Focus on the Family, are they really trying to protect the unborn, or have they gotten so cozy with the political machine that they were supposed to be holding accountable that they have lost sight of their mission?

While the Bible contains no “Thou shalt not” in regards to lottery gambling specifically or to gambling in general, it does provide insights and precepts which strongly indicate that lottery gambling is wrong. The following is a brief summary of many of those principles.

* The Bible emphasizes the sovereignty of God in the matter of human events (Matthew 10:29-30); gambling looks to chance and luck.

* The Bible indicates that people are to work creatively and diligently and use their possessions for the greater good (Acts 20:35 -- 2 Thessalonians 3:10); gambling fosters something-for-nothing and cavalier attitudes toward money and the honest labor that should produce it.

* The Bible requires the careful stewardship and the generous sharing of our resources, particularly in the areas of family welfare and support for God’s work (1 Timothy 5:8 -- 2 Corinthians 9:6-9); gambling calls for reckless abandon, selfishness, and disregard for the well-being of others.

* The Bible warns against materialism and covetousness (Matthew 6:24-34 -- Exodus 20:17); the heart of gambling is the essence of those two conditions.

* The moral thrust of the Bible as Christ expressed when he proclaimed the two greatest commandments is paramount love for God and a deep and abiding love for other people (Matthew 22:34-40 -- Romans 13:8-10); lottery gambling makes the state and economic predator of its weakest and most vulnerable residents and is entirely antithetical to the whole love language embodied in the scriptures.

* The Bible is clear that Economic Justice, a concern for the well-being of the disadvantaged and poor, is to be a very important consideration as we make decisions and take action (Proverbs 29:7); since lottery gambling imposes a predatory tax on the poor, our failure to oppose it is a lost opportunity to protect and prevent the exploitation of the disadvantaged and vulnerable.

The Social and Economic Case Against a State Lottery

From NoLotteryArkansasA Campaign by the Arkansas Committee for Ethics Policy,A companion organization to the Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council

THE SIMPLE – BUT DEVASTATING – CASE AGAINST A STATE LOTTERY

Since the lottery gambling proposal being offered to Arkansas voters purports to generate additional revenue to fund college scholarships, let’s frame the compelling arguments against adopting the lottery in the contexts of introductory college courses:

* Economics 101* Civics 101* Sociology 101

ECONOMICS 101 Everybody Pays- Every tax-paying Arkansan, whether purchasers of lottery tickets or not, will be required to subsidize the lottery. Why? Because a high percentage of people in lower economic circumstances will gamble an inordinate amount of their income, increasing social costs required to care for their families – costs borne by all taxpayers.

A Lottery Is a Predatory Tax- State lotteries are the most unfair taxes in use today, preying especially on those least able to afford it.

Lotteries Shift Money from Citizens to Government- Since all but one of six states bordering Arkansas have lotteries, virtually all lottery purchases will be made by Arkansans. This will divert money from the traditional economy, which supports jobs, businesses, and generates sales tax and other revenue, to the lottery which is economically impotent.

Arkansans Will Pay it All- Given the fact that virtually all Arkansas lottery ticket sales will be to Arkansans, no influx of tourists and their money will be generated. “New” money won’t be found; “old” money will simply be diverted to the lottery gambling “shell game.”

The Costs Far Outweigh the Benefits- If a legitimate cost/benefit analysis is conducted, the wisdom of rejecting the lottery proposal is obvious.

CIVICS 101Conflict of Interests- Since the state will own and operate a lottery, and since government has an insatiable appetite for more tax revenue, this lottery gambling scheme will create a serious and irreconcilable conflict of interest.

Government Should Be a Protector, Not a Predator- With adoption of a lottery, the state’s role is immediately inverted. Rather than being that guardian of its weakest people, it becomes an economic predator of them. In essence, it creates a “reverse Robin Hood effect,” where money is taken from the poor and given to the rich.

There is Only One Legitimate Role for the State- No government can simultaneously serve as guardian -- looking out for the best interests of its most vulnerable residents -- and predator -- by operating a giant numbers game -- where it can only succeed by misleading and exploiting those very people.

SOCIOLOGY 101 The Law of “Unintended Consequences”- The results of a state lottery that relate to sociology, like several of the effects listed above, fall within the Unintended Consequences category. However, whether intended or not, these results are real and adversely impact a state’s quality of life.

“Rich Man / Poor Man”- An Arkansas scholarship lottery will pit two groups of Arkansans against one another, inadvertently creating a type of class warfare. The first group generally consists of middle and upper middle class families. The second group is comprised of families of lower economic standing.

The Haves- The middle and upper income group has a higher incidence of voting and will not gamble in the lottery at a high proportional rate, but have children who will benefit disproportionately more from a scholarship lottery.The Have-nots- The poorer, lower income group does not vote as heavily as the first group and statistically gambles in the lottery at a much higher proportional rate. Children of these families will receive minimal benefit from a scholarship lottery.

This Accidental War – and its Casualties – Should be Avoided- Members of the first group may, by virtue of their vote and the desire to find much needed help with the high cost of college education for their children, unwittingly and innocently impose a burdensome and unfair tax burden on the very people who will largely pay for the lottery gambling scheme, but not benefit in any significant way from it.

For empirical evidence see articles and research at the NoLotteryArkansas.com website or by calling, emailing, or writing the addresses below.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Josh Duggar to Wed Anna Kellar of Florida

Joshua Duggar, the eldest of the 18 children of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, has announced his engagement to Anna Kellar of Florida. The two will wed on the 26th of September near Jacksonville Florida.

In addition to expressing appreciation to their parents, and thanksgiving to the Lord, the newest Duggar family also answered the #1 question on most folks minds: Do they also plan to have a hu-normous family?.......

"We look forward to the blessing of children as stated in the Psalms, “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” (Psalms 127:3) Having both been raised in large families, we have agreed to trust God in the area of children and the size of it. Our goal as we enter parenthood is to build a Godly heritage and to train our children to love God and others and that our investment in their lives will make a lasting positive impact in the world for Jesus Christ!"

Scholarship Spending Too High?

The State's Director of Higher Education says that spending for merit/performance scholarships is too high at some Arkansas Universities. Universities nationwide average about 10% of their state funds and tuition on such scholarships. Some Arkansas Universities spend a much larger share, up to 38% in the case of UCA.

The Department has drafted a proposal that the cap on such scholarships be restricted to 15% of state revenues and tuition- 50% above the national average. Schools that violate the cap would face financial penalties.

Can someone please tell me again why we should help destroy lives and bust up families all over the state with a lottery in order to dump even more money into college scholarships?

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Was Palin a Member of a Third Party?

As Governor Palin addressed the 2008 Alaskan Independence Party Convention. There are reports that she attended the 1994 convention as an AIP member.****************************************

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE. The NY Times has issued a correction. It now appears that husband Todd Palin was a member of the AIP, but the reports that Sarah Palin was a member are unsubstantiated.*****************************************John McCain is counting on Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin to draw voters to his ticket. A ticket that is built on an independent-minded, reformist image. That image may be closer to reality than some Republican operatives are comfortable with when it comes to Palin. ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper cites many Alaskan observers who say that Todd and Sarah Palin got their political start as members of the Alaskan Independent Party in 1994. Palin switched to the Republican ticket by her 1996 run for Mayor of Wasilla.

The Alaskan Independent Party is called a "fringe" party by Tapper, but in the context of the times that is hardly fair. Walter Hinckel, a former Republican Governor, was elected Governor of Alaska on the AIP ticket in 1990, only four years from the Palin's involvement. Since that time the party has not been able to replicate that success, but at the time it must have seemed like a viable alternative to the corrupt Alaskan Republican establishment that Palin later took on from within the party.

The AIP was also described as "secessionist", a description that Tapper later points out is not really accurate. There is no doubt they are a states-rights party, and that they want the Federal Government to turn over its vast Alaskan holdings to the state. Their platform most closely lines up with the Constitution Party. In fact, since 2004 the Alaskan Independent Party has been the state affiliate of the national Constitution Party.